> OK, thanks. But can you tell us why it has not appeared when you indicated it would? Surely that’s not top secret!!
>
> Bart D. Ehrman
> James A. Gray Professor
> Department of Religious Studies
> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
>
> Please Join My New Blog: Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
> At www.ehrmanblog.org<http://www.ehrmanblog.org>
>
>
>
> From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Daniel B. Wallace
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 4:25 AM
> To: textualcriticism
> Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Manifest Greatness, Bart Ehrman, the KJV, and Luke 17:9
>
>
>
> If I may add my two cents:
>
> First, Bart, you know that I can't talk any further about the Mark fragment. It's not that I don't want to; it's that I can't.
>
> Second, as for this unending thread of beating up Bart, I think it has gone on long enough and, in fact, way, way too long. The points were made, and I hope in subsequent editions of his books Bart would seriously consider revising some of his statements. Enough said. Now, let's get back to textual criticism, as Tommy suggested.
>
> Daniel B. Wallace
> CSNTM
>
> ----- Start Original Message -----
> Sent: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:41:47 +0000
> From: "Ehrman, Bart D" <behrman@...<mailto:behrman%40email.unc.edu>>
> To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com>" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Manifest Greatness, Bart Ehrman, the
> KJV, and Luke 17:9
>
> > Yes, please!!!
> >
> > And on that note. Does anyone on the list have any further information on the first-century copy of the Gospel of Mark that Dan Wallace announced? I thought he had indicated at one point that it would be published in a Brill book at the beginning of 2013. Books are always late in appearing for large numbers of reasons. But does anyone know anything about it?
> >
> >
> > - Bart Ehrman
> >
> >
> > Bart D. Ehrman
> > James A. Gray Professor
> > Department of Religious Studies
> > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
> >
> > Please Join My New Blog: Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
> > At www.ehrmanblog.org<http://www.ehrmanblog.org>
> >
> >
> >
> > From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Tommy Wasserman
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 3:34 AM
> > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Manifest Greatness, Bart Ehrman, the KJV, and Luke 17:9
> >
> >
> > Thanks Larry!
> >
> > I really concur with your last point, I am also hoping that we can get back to textual criticism.
> >
> > Tommy Wasserman
> >
> > 29 jul 2013 kl. 20:09 skrev Larry Swain <theswain@...<mailto:theswain%40operamail.com><mailto:theswain@...<mailto:theswain%40operamail.com>>>:
> >
> > Actually, I disagree. First, comparing Bart or a movie star's complaint re: the negative aspects of American celebrity to some of the malign human conditions around the world is really an unfair one and is fallacious. Moreover, it really falls flat for me when the people in question, in this case Bart and Matt, do things for charity, support charities, and do something that most people in the pews on Sunday don't: try to alleviate some of that suffering in the world by taking direct actions.
> >
> > Second, no one, neither Bart nor Matt, asked for or even expected the negative aspects of celebrity, nor should those negative aspects (and Bart hardly has the paparrazi on his back, on the one side he has all of conservative, evangelical Christianity in America and on the other he has the rabid agnostic/atheists/minimalists. What's more, it's not about someone trying to get a picture of Bart having a burger out with a grad student, since both sides that are now out for blood (at least figuratively though to hear some of the discussion I sometimes wonder) feel betrayed by one of their own and will do everything they can...including lie, use fallacious reasoning, and distort and mischaracterize...to discredit him. That is a much different issue than "the paparazzi". So it seems to me that as bad a response as "good grief" was, this one is just as bad because it really addresses the wrong issues altogether.
> >
> > Now I remind you that I don't say this as someone who is best buds with Bart Ehrman. If you look through the archives you will find that I have at times criticized some of Bart's statements rather harshly.
> >
> > I would say that on a list such as this one, any poster's notoriety or celebrity or lack thereof are immaterial. What's important is the nature of the arguments and evidence. In the case of this lecture it seems to be that tone of the criticism and the "apology" demanded etc have everything to do with the notoriety and celebrity in spite of the content. There's no assessment about what he got right in the context of the errors or how important those errors are. And certainly while we on this list often assess a book, article, or scholar's position on various questions of textual criticism, we don't as a rule demand they apologize if we mount evidence against their position or that they give me the money back for the price of the book--I can only conclude from the discussion that the criticism and the concluding demands have everything to do with the person of Bart Ehrman and not the arguments and evidence of Bart Ehrman. It should always be the latter, never the former.
> >
> > In the spirit of fairness, I have read elsewhere in Bart's works James' #6 and 7 in his list (and no, I'm not a supporter of the originality of the Pericope (pace James) though I love the tale), but rather than demand an apology or my money back or even hope for clarification blog wise, I hope that in future these statements will not be made as though fact. Even scholars advanced in careers make mistakes and learn from them.
> >
> > Let's return to our regularly scheduled program.
> >
> > --
> > Larry Swain
> > Bemidji State University
> > theswain@...<mailto:theswain%40operamail.com><mailto:theswain@...<mailto:theswain%40operamail.com>>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 28, 2013, at 08:43 PM, Edward Andrews wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. Ehrman:
> >
> > With all do respect, your first paragraph is an unnecessary complaint. It is like a movie star like Matt Damon, complaining because he cannot go anywhere without being hounded. When I think of all of those who suffer from day-to-day, slaving away in a plastic factory for minimum wage, having no insurance for their children, and a famous actor has the best of everything. You chose to become this famous apologist for the agnostic side of the fence. You have garnered a fair amount of celebrity out of it as well, meaning that you do not shy away from a camera. With your celebrity has come the privilege of when you speak, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, publishers, and liberal progressive society sit up and listen. You could write a paperback with the most provocative title about Jesus or the history of the NT text, and have no real evidence other than the same old arguments you raise, and your book is likely to hit the New York Times bestseller list. Daniel Wallace, Darrel Bock, Norman Geisler could write a book with a non-provocative title about a similar subject, and be Lucky to sell a few hundred without the publisher pushing it to to death. Do you realize that many hundreds of conservative Bible scholars would love to have your impact, your reach, but do not. You have a privileged position that you asked for, and now because the paparazzi are on your back, you feel the need to complain. Really? If you do not like the press, stop hanging out in front of the camera. You did not look too stressed on your repeated trips to the Jon Stewart Daily Show or Stephen Colbert show, and the many others.
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > ______________________________
> > Edward D. Andrews
> > CEO and President of Christian Publishing House
> >
> > http://www.christianpublishers.org<http://www.christianpublishers.org/>
> > Facebook: www.facebook.com/BibleTransMag<http://www.facebook.com/BibleTransMag>
> > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ChristianPublishingHouse
> > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/christianway.us
> > 740-630-9318 office Christian Publishing House
> > 740-630-9319 office Biblical Training Academy
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: "Ehrman, Bart D" <behrman@...<mailto:behrman%40email.unc.edu><mailto:behrman@...<mailto:behrman%40email.unc.edu>>>
> > To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com>>" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com<mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com>>>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 5:10 PM
> > Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Manifest Greatness, Bart Ehrman, the KJV, and Luke 17:9
> >
> >
> > Larry,
> >
> > Thanks for your reasonable note. You’re absolutely right, and I apologize to you and to everyone else for what was taken to be a rude reply.
> >
> > Now that I’m on the defensive (☺) let me explain myself. The reality is that I’m just worn out with having to contend with people attacking me from all sides no matter what I write or say or to whom. There were three “response-books” written to attack my book Misquoting Jesus; a lot of people told me they were upset that I did not reply to these books (all written, as you might imagine, by very conservative evangelical Christians). Just now a 608-page (count them, 608 pages) book was written to refute everything I said, or thought about saying, or imagined thinking about saying, in my book Did Jesus Exist? (Written, as you might again imagine, by people on just the opposite side of the spectrum: atheist or agnostic mythicists). And even *more* people have told me that I have to respond (point by point!). There is a website dedicated to showing that everything I’ve ever said in most of my books wrong (“the Ehrman Project”). And I can’t even give a lecture to a small group of 30 people in Los Angeles without someone fact-checking it point by point (there were a lot of points) and posting a list of ten horrifying errors and asking me if I shouldn’t refund the admission price. So, as I said, I find it tiring. But I shouldn’t have responded as I did; I should have done what I usually do, and just let it go.
> >
> > I don’t have a detailed response to give, because I am overseas and do not have any of my books with me to go through point by point and fact-check the fact-checkers. That is an additional (large) part of my frustration. It is exacerbated by the fact that most of these ten points are so vague that I would have to do a lot of research just to understand what the error was. (#1: which terms? All of the ones I mentioned? Really? That would be interesting; #2 which ones?; #3: I’d have to look that up; #4 this one’s almost certainly right and is a serious mistake; but anyone who hasn’t made mistakes like this on their feet in front of an audience really needs to spend more time on their feet in front of an audience; #5: Metzger did? Really?? Where’s that? Maybe he changed his mind back when he and I talked about it ten years ago; #6, yes, there are a lot of things I didn’t say about the PA in this talk; but I’m not obliged to say everything, and what I said, I think, was true [I haven’t listened to my talk, and I’ve never given the talk a second time; but if I said that the PA is not in any Greek manuscript before Bezae, then that’s true; if you mention Jerome, btw, you need to mention Didymus, who indicates that it was in more than one Gospel]; #7 I don’t know what he’s
> >
>
> ----- End Original Message -----
>

----- End Original Message -----

Mr. Buck

From: theswain@operamail.com Regarding the PA, Bart s right: it isn t found in our ancient manuscripts. That an ancient author

Message 51 of 51
, Sep 3, 2013

From: "theswain@..." <theswain@...>

Regarding the PA, Bart's right: it isn't found in our ancient manuscripts. That an ancient author mentions finding it in some does not falsify Bart's statement. Can we verify Jerome's statement? Nope, though there seems contemporary evidence to support in the form of similar statements by contemporaries. But they all agree that a) this reading doesn't universally appear b) that the PA is debated and c) the earliest evidence of it in John is late fourth century, so technically ancient, but hardly early attestation. So Bart once again isn't wrong in his characterization. One could argue incomplete; but KJV editions usually don't qualify the inclusion of the PA or explain the textual history. Since that is so and the KJV does include the PA, I hardly think that Bart's objection on the grounds of a FACT is a basis to criticize
him.

Larry,

Since James didn't touch on this point in his rebuttal, I will. First, I'll say that the virtues of the KJV are more or less in the eyes of the beholder, so it's hardly fair to criticize someone for pointing out a few that someone else may not consider a virtue. On the other hand, mistakes are objective. James was not accusing Bart of being wrong in claiming that the KJV has some mistranslated and archaic words in it--it is evident to a typical clear-thinking person that it does--just as it is evident to a clear-thinking person that Bart made mistakes about the KJV's mistakes (and that James himself even made
one).

Now, back to the PA. It is in D 05, and that is one of our ancient manuscripts--Bart himself said so elsewhere, as earlier noted. It's even Bart's favorite ancient manuscript for Mark 1:41, where he acceptsits singular reading as original and that of the 'earliest and best' manuscripts as corruptions.

Daniel Buck

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.